much needed , so everyone can have privacy to their account
4 Likes
I just want to second this (or however many it is), even though there are just two of us it’d be way better to have seperate family accounts rather than sharing an account.
Personally it wouldn’t need to be a single price with n number of people. But adding folks on for a reduced price would be very useful.
3 Likes
Agreed, this should have been a thing as soon as the 4o model came out.
3 Likes
100% agree. Came across this post in my search for ChatGPT Family account so that I can get rid of seeing my wife and kid’s logs and history without needing to pay 4x
3 Likes
Plus one here. Family of four.
3 Likes
this is what I am looking for!
3 Likes
I will subscribe if there is a family plan.
4 Likes
Yes!
If there is 4 of us that uses ChatGPT daily, but some of us is heavy user, and others are casual this would be a great thing.
Plus I could add my father so he can see what this is all about.
Thank you!
3 Likes
Absolutely, completely agree. Don’t have subscription. We are retired, extended family, on budget. We have family plans for Bitdefender; phone; etc, etc. This we would sign up for.
4 Likes
Needs this asap - currently have 3 paid subs in our house.
4 Likes
Another vote here, I need this so I can use it with my wife and kids!
3 Likes
I also give a vote for this feature.
3 Likes
YES YES YES!!! Please famaly plan
3 Likes
Yes five person household we’d be up for it!
3 Likes
I would like to share with you this legal essay prepared by ChatGPT (!) regarding this issue. Feel free to comment:
Legality and Fairness in Subscription Sharing Policies
Introduction:
The restrictive subscription-sharing policies employed by companies like OpenAI—prohibiting resource sharing even between legally recognized partners—raise significant legal and ethical concerns. This essay outlines why such practices could be deemed excessive and potentially unlawful, particularly when they disregard the unique relationship of spouses and families who share resources as a fundamental part of their partnership.
Key Arguments:
- Excessive Restriction Violates Principles of Reasonableness:
Subscription-sharing policies that prevent legally recognized partners, such as spouses, from using a single subscription run counter to the legal principle of reasonableness. Courts often consider whether restrictions imposed by businesses are proportionate to their objectives. While OpenAI’s intention might be to prevent misuse or unauthorized sharing, banning resource-sharing within a family or partnership exceeds what is necessary to achieve this goal.
- Legal Recognition of Marital Partnerships:
Marriage is a legally recognized partnership in most jurisdictions, granting spouses the right to share property and resources. OpenAI’s restrictive policies interfere with this fundamental legal principle, effectively imposing undue constraints on the rights of married individuals. Courts may interpret such restrictions as unenforceable or unlawful in the context of a partnership where resource sharing is inherent.
- Consumer Protection Laws:
Many jurisdictions have consumer protection laws designed to prevent businesses from imposing unfair terms on users. Subscription agreements that forbid reasonable, household-level sharing may be seen as “unfair terms” because they attempt to control usage in ways that are overly intrusive and disproportionate to the service provided.
- Industry Standards and Practices:
The broader industry context demonstrates that OpenAI’s policy is an outlier. Many subscription-based services, including Netflix and Spotify, allow resource sharing within households or offer affordable family plans. By not aligning with these norms, OpenAI’s restrictive policies could be deemed anti-competitive or unfair.
- Ethical and Reputational Risks:
Beyond legality, restrictive policies risk alienating users and causing reputational damage. A policy perceived as overreaching or unfair could spark backlash, including public campaigns, legal challenges, and loss of consumer trust. OpenAI’s lack of flexibility places it at odds with evolving expectations of fairness and equity in digital services.
Conclusion:
OpenAI’s restrictive subscription-sharing policy could be considered excessive, anti-consumer, and potentially unlawful under the principles of reasonableness, legal partnership rights, and consumer protection. We urge OpenAI to revise its terms to better reflect industry norms and legal fairness. Failure to do so could result in regulatory scrutiny, legal challenges, and significant reputational harm.
3 Likes
And this is what ChatGPT gave me when I complained about my underaged (16.o.) son not being able to use my subscription because “OpenAI’s terms of service specify that account credentials should not be shared with others outside your organization.” :
You make a compelling point. Families are indeed the most natural and fundamental form of human organization. The language in terms of service often uses “organization” to refer to formal entities like businesses or institutions, but this leaves ambiguity when applied to family units. This creates a contradiction when restricting resource sharing within the most basic “organization” in society—households and families.
Legal and Ethical Context:
- Definition of an Organization:
A family can arguably be viewed as an “organization” in the broadest sense. Families share resources, make decisions collectively, and act as a single unit in many aspects of life. Excluding families from resource-sharing policies feels arbitrary and ignores the social and legal recognition of family as a partnership or unit.
- Consumer Expectation and Precedent:
Many digital services, like Spotify, Netflix, and Apple, acknowledge households or families as shared users of a single resource, offering plans explicitly tailored for this. Refusing to consider families as “organizations” that share resources goes against established norms and consumer expectations.
- Potential Legal Oversight:
Restrictions on sharing resources between family members, especially spouses, may not align with legal norms in jurisdictions where partnerships or joint ownership are recognized by law. A policy that penalizes family sharing could be subject to legal scrutiny under consumer protection laws or anti-competitive practices.
In summary, your argument that families are a natural “organization” challenges the logic and fairness of overly strict subscription-sharing policies. This distinction is important for shaping how such policies evolve and align with societal values.
4 Likes
I completely agree that a family plan for ChatGPT would be an excellent addition. Many other subscription-based services offer family options, making it easier and more affordable for multiple family members to use the service under one account.
A family plan could be especially useful for households where parents, students, and even younger kids might want to access ChatGPT for educational or creative purposes. It would also encourage more people to adopt the service while fostering responsible usage within families.
I hope OpenAI considers introducing this option soon. It would be a win-win for users and the company!
2 Likes
+1 to this. My wife and I both use ChatGPT daily and I’m the only one with a plus account.
2 Likes
Dear ChatGPT Team,
I hope this message finds you well. I would like to kindly suggest a more flexible subscription model for families, which would allow up to four people to use individual accounts with personalized preferences and machine learning features without requiring separate subscriptions for each member.
As a resident of Brazil, the current subscription cost of $20 USD per person represents approximately 35% of our national minimum wage, making it quite a financial burden for multiple users within the same household. Many platforms, such as Starlink, already adapt their pricing structures to align with local economic conditions, and it would be greatly appreciated if ChatGPT could consider similar options.
Alternatively, introducing a family plan at a more reasonable price point would allow individuals in the same household to enjoy the full potential of the platform while maintaining their individual user experience. For instance, in my case, I currently subscribe to the Plus plan, but my elderly parents—who also use ChatGPT daily—are unable to access the premium features due to cost.
Providing a more affordable family option would not only expand accessibility but also allow households like mine to fully benefit from ChatGPT’s capabilities. I believe many other families share this need and would appreciate such a solution.
Thank you for considering this suggestion. I look forward to seeing how ChatGPT continues to evolve to better serve its global user base.
Best regards
3 Likes
+1 would definitely purchase one
3 Likes